Oh, so apparently this Reyes guy is good right? What would be an appropriate NBA comparison to a player of his caliber? Curious to know what kind of guy we're getting.

Baseball and Basketball(MLB & NBA) are hard to compare. Even though Jose Reyes is the best player in the deal, the Jay's agreed to take him on because they wanted Josh Johnson and Mark Buehrle. This is the unannounced part of the deal but it was his(Reyes) contract(5yrs-96) mil mainly that Miami wanted to shed. Jay's were able to do this as they had stacked up their minor league team with good young prospects. Two of the prospects they traded are considered Blue chip prospects. The best comparison I can think of is the Raps. taking on Carmello Anthony and his massive contract 'cause they actually need Tyson Chandler and in return give the Knicks a bunch of potential future star players with Jonas being one of them. Again this is only an example.

I'd say if Bautista is Lebron, than Reyes is Wade to try to make a nba comparison.

I'm not that excited about Cabrera...guy was juicing.

Personally I'm not a big fan of drug users either. Cabrera's doping is a fact that AA is well aware of as well. He still signed him which means he believes that he can produce even when clean. I have a lot of respect for AA's ability to gauge talent so let's hope he(Cabrera) turns out OK.

You can watch Blue Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos discuss the trade in a news conference live on TSN.ca Tuesday at 9:30am et/6:30am pt. It can also be heard on TSN Radio 1050 at TSN.ca/Toronto with coverage starting at 9am et.

"It is my conclusion that this transaction, involving established major leaguers and highly regarded young players and prospects, represents the exercise of plausible baseball judgment on the part of both clubs, does not violate any express rule of Major League Baseball and does not otherwise warrant the exercise of any of my powers to prevent its completion," Selig said it a statement. "It is, of course, up to the clubs involved to make the case to their respective fans that this transaction makes sense and enhances the competitive position of each, now or in the future."

I never really thought about comparing NBA stars to MLB stars just because team composition varies so much between the two sports. But now that you mention it, I'm intrigued.

One of the problems with the endeavor is that you can't have a Lebron James in the MLB. Take the Tigers for example. It's hard to compare the relative worth to the team of Cabrera and Verlander. The latter isn't asked to pick up a bat for the majority of the season, and the former is never asked to pitch. Both players are arguably equally valuable to the team, yet none of their skill-sets are comparable because they are mutually exclusive.

All this is to say that if I were to compare Jose Reyes to, say, Chris Paul, what does that mean for Josh Johnson? To whom do I compare him? It's tricky business making parallels between two sports that are so structurally distinct.

HOWEVER, my above comparison of Reyes to Paul isn't entirely arbitrary -- I think there are some (admittedly oblique) similarities between the two players: both are dynamic, both are quick and feisty, both are talented two way players, both are widely considered to be the best/second best player at their position (PG and SS respectively).

So while I don't think you can compare players between the two sports in any substantive way. I think it's at least meaningful to compare them in terms of status, style, and respect/recognition. And on that front, there's nothing but good comp's.

Call me insecure, but when your favorite team is the Raptors, it's nice to have some bonafide STARS to talk about (at length, in this case, for which I apologize!)

After all the exciting moves the Jay's made, they end bringing back Gibbons. I don't understand the rationale behind this. Like every manager, he has his plus points but I remember the team being in shambles when he and his coaching staff were fired for Cito and his staff. The fact that Cito steadied the ship somewhat proved that it was something Gibbons was doing that was the problem. I have liked AA's moves including the John Farell hire but I can't say the same about this one.

I don't mind them bringing back Gibby. He doesn't take shit from players (see Hillenbrand and Lilly) and keep in mind that he had 86 and 87 win seasons where his best player was Vernon Wells. Look what he has to work with now. I like Gibbons and I think he's a good fit to manager this team. JMO

I don't mind them bringing back Gibby. He doesn't take shit from players (see Hillenbrand and Lilly) and keep in mind that he had 86 and 87 win seasons where his best player was Vernon Wells. Look what he has to work with now. I like Gibbons and I think he's a good fit to manager this team. JMO

He definitely has his plus points, his "no nonsense" approach probably being the strongest. This team now compared to the then team is much better but I don't think he had a terrible team then either, Halladay, Wells, Glaus, AJ, BJ being some of his players.

AA has always proved many wrong with his moves and I hope he does with this one ESPECIALLY.

my knee jerk reaction was i hated it, but now that i think about it, its a good hire. he can definitely handle the big egos and i think that'll be key, plus as doc mentioned, mustered 86 and 87 win seasons with a dearth of talent.

After all the exciting moves the Jay's made, they end bringing back Gibbons. I don't understand the rationale behind this. Like every manager, he has his plus points but I remember the team being in shambles when he and his coaching staff were fired for Cito and his staff. The fact that Cito steadied the ship somewhat proved that it was something Gibbons was doing that was the problem. I have liked AA's moves including the John Farell hire but I can't say the same about this one.

Gibbons is a terrific hire. Should never have been fired in the first place.

He's a shrewd tactical manager. He understands platoons and splits. He's great at managing the bullpen and pitchers. And he's good with the media. Unlike Farrell, Gibbons won't have guys running into stupid outs and he won't get out-coached.

The big thing is that Gibbons and AA are good friends and AA trusts him. After Farrell, he needed someone he could trust.

Gibbons is a terrific hire. Should never have been fired in the first place.

He's a shrewd tactical manager. He understands platoons and splits. He's great at managing the bullpen and pitchers. And he's good with the media. Unlike Farrell, Gibbons won't have guys running into stupid outs and he won't get out-coached.

The big thing is that Gibbons and AA are good friends and AA trusts him. After Farrell, he needed someone he could trust.

Couldn't agree more. I really like the hire.

Any news on whether or not he will retain any of the staff? Or did Farrell take them with him?

I never really thought about comparing NBA stars to MLB stars just because team composition varies so much between the two sports. But now that you mention it, I'm intrigued.

One of the problems with the endeavor is that you can't have a Lebron James in the MLB. Take the Tigers for example. It's hard to compare the relative worth to the team of Cabrera and Verlander. The latter isn't asked to pick up a bat for the majority of the season, and the former is never asked to pitch. Both players are arguably equally valuable to the team, yet none of their skill-sets are comparable because they are mutually exclusive.

All this is to say that if I were to compare Jose Reyes to, say, Chris Paul, what does that mean for Josh Johnson? To whom do I compare him? It's tricky business making parallels between two sports that are so structurally distinct.

HOWEVER, my above comparison of Reyes to Paul isn't entirely arbitrary -- I think there are some (admittedly oblique) similarities between the two players: both are dynamic, both are quick and feisty, both are talented two way players, both are widely considered to be the best/second best player at their position (PG and SS respectively).

So while I don't think you can compare players between the two sports in any substantive way. I think it's at least meaningful to compare them in terms of status, style, and respect/recognition. And on that front, there's nothing but good comp's.

Call me insecure, but when your favorite team is the Raptors, it's nice to have some bonafide STARS to talk about (at length, in this case, for which I apologize!)

I think I get what you're trying to say. Baseball is more of a linear sport. Any basketball player can do as much as the next guy if they desire to, since positions are only a word, not an actual role, unlike baseball. Great basketball players require versatility and multiple skills, whereas great baseball players are great in that specific position.

I just do not understand how you differentiate a great baseball player from a good one. Is it based purely on stats? Is there that much of a skill gap between certain players? These are things that I find hard to understand when watching other sports.

I just do not understand how you differentiate a great baseball player from a good one. Is it based purely on stats? Is there that much of a skill gap between certain players? These are things that I find hard to understand when watching other sports.

The main thing in baseball is consistency. Some players have crazy good years (Edwin Encarnacion), but until they do it year in, year out, they won't be considered a top-tier great player (Derek Jeter)

I just do not understand how you differentiate a great baseball player from a good one. Is it based purely on stats? Is there that much of a skill gap between certain players? These are things that I find hard to understand when watching other sports.

Like in any sport, the difference is in talent. Depending on talent level, there are the Superstars, Stars, Role players and so on.